Obama Closing US Embassy in the Vatican - Says it's 'unsafe'

matafuchs

The Obama administration has decided that the free-standing American embassy to the Holy See will soon be closed, and the offices for the Ambassador to the Vatican will be moved inside of our Italian Embassy.

As a part of the security reviews that followed the attacks on our embassy in Benghazi last year, State Department officials are now claiming that the current U.S. Embassy to the Holy See is no longer safe.

Safety? This makes no sense. If they said it was to save money, or consolidate resources, that would be the perfect line. But to say for safety, it is almost implying that being Catholic or of the Christian faith is not a safe place to be in this day and age.

I would think that the Vatican City is one of the safest places on the planet. Pickpockets sure but attacks from terrorists on an embassy??? No military attacks since the 20's except for WW2. Where is the threat?

It is not in Vatican City. It is just a villa in Rome. It is not on a secure compound like other US embassies. The Embassy to Italy is also in Rome, thus they want to move the people out of the Villa and on to the compound.

reply to post by MrSpad


Why would it need to be moved less than 3 miles away? For safety reasons?

per the CIA report:
a country huh....let's see no GDP reported, but as of 2011, it declared it was 15 million euros in debt (maybe or maybe not) who knows, because they have no public accounting system. but, who wouldn't trust an entity that smuggled Nazis out of Germany, and covered up child molesters (sarcasm)
military protection is to be provided by Italy, Vatican guards can only be of (not Italian?) Swiss heritage, 19-30 years old, volunteers only, must be roman catholic, with secondary education...
no legal system (only canon law), does not recognize any international law, or come under any international jurisdiction, no labor laws, no environmental laws, no trade laws, no discrimination laws, no financial or banking laws or restrictions, no disclosure of assets, credits, debits, investments, salaries or incomes, no public courts to adjudicate crimes, private elections are only for cardinals, to vote for cardinals. and no kids?....what country in the world has no kids?

yeh, sounds like a country to me (again, sarcasm)

matafuchs
reply to post by MrSpad

 

Why would it need to be moved less than 3 miles away? For safety reasons?

maybe the building became too old for the embassy to operate in a safe manner...(wiring, foundation, walls, ceilings plumbing, heating and A/C, proper security infrastructure, communications, mold, pests, etc...

FlyersFan
The Vatican is a country. And it's not 'unsafe'.

Unless you are a child......

I think the Vatican is busy repairing itself and not too concerned with what another American president thinks of it.

matafuchs
reply to post by MrSpad

 

Why would it need to be moved less than 3 miles away? For safety reasons?

The US Embassy Rome is a large secure compound

The US Embassy Vatican on a hill in Rome is small villa with a fence around it.

Remember the Embassy to the Vatican only started in 1984 and is so small because it does not have all the normal funtions of an Embassy dealing with immigration etc. because of the Vaticans tiny size. So it is small, isolated and vulnerable just like the United States Mission to the UN Agencies in Rome was before it was moved to its own building on the main US Embassy Compound Rome for security reasons. Moving the Embassy to its own building on the compound is just common sense and saves money as well. Nor is it unsual. San Marino is also a tiny country in Italy that is represented at the Embassy in Rome.

reply to post by MrSpad


I have been to both and both are easy street targets. The actual embassy if you wanted to would be leveled by a truck bomb. It seems more like a religious pop to Catholics just as the deal with Iran did not include the release of the priest who is held there for no reason. In the past the administrations looked upon all religions and tried to make the best decisions for all so they were safe. Saeed should have been released when sanctions were lifted.

Why not just close it all together?

A Muslim persecuting Christians. Nothing new.

FlyersFan

deessell
I think this is very big news!

I think this feeds the thought that many have in regards to Obama .... everything he does downplays Christianity while at the same time everything he does protects and advances Islam. This is just one more piece of evidence to that thought. And closing the Vatican embassy is a pretty BIG thing!

Perhaps this is his response to Angola ban a few days ago.

What else did you expect from him?
He is Muslim to.

jimmyx
yeh, sounds like a country to me (again, sarcasm)

We get it .. you are far left and hate the religion thing. But the fact of the matter is ... it's a country. The amount of debt they have and how they run it is irrelevant. It's a country. It meets the criteria that I posted. It has foreign embassies and ambassadors. That's just the way it is.

They finally got Direct Deposit. No need for a physical office anymore.

reply to post by MrSpad


So this is simply a move and not a closure.

So who mis-characterized it? An Obama administration official or the MSM reporting it?

From what I can tell so far, it seems like it was intentionally mis-characterized and sensationalized by the media.

I'm shocked, I say, shocked...

Rezlooper
A Pope who is working to dismantle his own church.

When I read worldnews.nbcnews.com... this morning, I wondered what would happen. He seems to be siding with the form of Christianity that is unpopular with the powerful. He's talking more like me. I'm a secular humanist.

MrSpad
So lets be clear about a few things. The US Embassy to the Vatican is not in the Vatican. It is in Rome. And it is not a traditional Embassy Compound, it just a house. It is on a hill and pretty small and very vulnerable because it is just a house. The US did not have an ambassador to the Vatican until 1984 and considering its small size most things an embassy does (paper work for visiting that country or vice versa to the US, immigration etc.) is non existant so they just tossed them into a villa instead a traditional embassy compound. Keeping two seperate places in Rome is kind of silly when the Embassy Compound to Italy is so close and could ealy handle the small staff from the Vatican one. Makes sense for security and saves money. Kind of hard to argue with that. Using a single Embassy to countries close together is normal.

But it would be a lot less hassle for Vatican staff to go to that little house, than it would be to leave the Vatican boundary and travel all the way to the other embassy. It transfers travel costs and security arrangements over to the Vatican.

matafuchs
reply to post by MrSpad

 

I have been to both and both are easy street targets. The actual embassy if you wanted to would be leveled by a truck bomb. It seems more like a religious pop to Catholics just as the deal with Iran did not include the release of the priest who is held there for no reason. In the past the administrations looked upon all religions and tried to make the best decisions for all so they were safe. Saeed should have been released when sanctions were lifted.

Why not just close it all together?

The Embassy compound is build to survive attacks, bombs etc and has its own security forces pluss the Italians. The Villa does not have much outside of a small fence and some security both Italian and US but, its small size and isolation makes it vulnerable to a quick raid where as it would take a small army to sieze the main embassy compound. And I am pretty the people who have spent the last year looking at security problems at embassys world wide have nothing to with the Iran negotiations. Closing it would be an insult but, moving it to a more secure location is not and only people who have a political agenda to push would say so. However, this being a State Department decision if it looked like it might cause domestic political blow back I am sure the White House would step in and have them spend a couple billion dollars turning the Villa into a fortress like most compounds. That would be a waste of money but, that is the way politics works.

stormcell

MrSpad
So lets be clear about a few things. The US Embassy to the Vatican is not in the Vatican. It is in Rome. And it is not a traditional Embassy Compound, it just a house. It is on a hill and pretty small and very vulnerable because it is just a house. The US did not have an ambassador to the Vatican until 1984 and considering its small size most things an embassy does (paper work for visiting that country or vice versa to the US, immigration etc.) is non existant so they just tossed them into a villa instead a traditional embassy compound. Keeping two seperate places in Rome is kind of silly when the Embassy Compound to Italy is so close and could ealy handle the small staff from the Vatican one. Makes sense for security and saves money. Kind of hard to argue with that. Using a single Embassy to countries close together is normal.

But it would be a lot less hassle for Vatican staff to go to that little house, than it would be to leave the Vatican boundary and travel all the way to the other embassy. It transfers travel costs and security arrangements over to the Vatican.

The house is already outside the Vatican they would not have go any further.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Uh, the Vatican accepted Euros the last time I was there...

Anyway interesting history on the Vatican! How cool would it be to have your own 1,000 acre country!

jimmyx
what country in the world has no kids?

No kids in the Vatican?

Hmmmm.... i wonder why?

This is only the beginning. What happens next will blow you away. The US is very interested in separating human rights issues with preceived rights to how one chooses to worship. The Vatican has no clout left politically when its obviously clear the general public has little voting power.